@KurtGodel7 said:
The mechanics of the game require a cannon fodder unit. To a large extent that's infantry. But because I gave each nation an MP cap, a PU-only cannon fodder unit was also needed. I will grant your point that calling it an "anti-tank gun" could be confusing for people unfamiliar with the map. As you say it has no anti-tank properties. But I needed that unit. I needed to give it a name which a) did not imply fast mobility, b) did not imply it was a type of infantry, and c) did not imply it was a very powerful unit. Calling it an "anti-tank gun" checked all three boxes. If anyone here has a better suggestion for a name I'm all ears.

How about Infantry Gun then? That was a pretty common term and it creates less confusion with the unit’s purpose.

The concern you're expressing here is that the infantry buff could make the game unbalanced between Axis and Allies. As for the latter concern: if play testing does reveal this latter source of imbalance there are ways it can be corrected. Starting units can be adjusted. The magnitude of the Allies' early game income nerfs can be altered. I can change technologies. Lots of levers I can pull to create game balance.

There are lots of ways to mess with the balance and compensate, I was just warning you that you’re about to make a lot more work for yourself. The more common a unit is, the higher the impact any change on it has. The impact is higher as well when the starting stats are low to begin with. A unit that gets a stat bump from 3 to 4 increases its hit rate by 33%, but a 2 to a 3 is a 50% increase, and a 1 to a 2 is 100% increase.

Or, instead of anti-tank, having light artillery (like the German 10.5 cm leFH or the Soviet 76-mm divisional gun M1939/M1942 - the latter is actually lighter and is almost an anti-tank gun) for that role. I'm not sure. It would definitely feel better as a "universal" unit which can take out tanks too without having any special anti-tank rule.

@KurtGodel7 said:

The mechanics of the game require a cannon fodder unit. To a large extent that's infantry. But because I gave each nation an MP cap, a PU-only cannon fodder unit was also needed. I will grant your point that calling it an "anti-tank gun" could be confusing for people unfamiliar with the map. As you say it has no anti-tank properties. But I needed that unit. I needed to give it a name which a) did not imply fast mobility, b) did not imply it was a type of infantry, and c) did not imply it was a very powerful unit. Calling it an "anti-tank gun" checked all three boxes. If anyone here has a better suggestion for a name I'm all ears.

Having the "light_mortars" or "infantry_mortars" as a unit, decoupling it from "infantry"? (I guess currently the "infantry" unit comprises mortars like the American 60mm and 81mm ones, which would be the mortars I'm talking about?)

However, assuming same number of men, that cannot cost much more than the infantry unit.

My suggestion for PUs use would rather be having ammunition consumption (especially for artillery). However, you could make the "light_mortars" unit enough costlier than it should be by just assuming a lot of ammunition consumption being implied in the initial cost (if there is no ammunition consumption in the game).

(However, adding ammunition consumption - even if comprising any related consumption like barrel's wear - is of course going to open for a lot on many respects, not last the ammunition consumption for AA artillery and of course bombs consumption and so on, then one would also say why not fuel consumption and so on and so on.)

One possibly nice thing of having "light_mortars" is that then you could represent the Japanese Type 89 grenade discharger (maybe).

To add to my earlier post: territories produce PUs for any nation which owns them. But they only produce MPs for their original owner.

Suppose that Japan conquers all of China. There would be a PU reward for doing this--maybe 25 PUs or something. But China starts off with an income of 11 MPs, I think. 11 Chinese conscripts per turn, plus whatever units China is able to buy with its PUs. China's main source of military strength is those 11 MPs, and those MPs do not go to Japan if China is conquered. This means that a Chinese-controlled China is a much bigger asset for the Allies than a Japanese-owned China would be for the Axis.